Supreme Court bats for Highways Act amendment, says bureaucrats should not decide land compensation disputes

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that it is, prima facie, not acceptable for compensation disputes over land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, to be decided by government-appointed bureaucrats. [M/S Riar Builders Pvt Ltd v. Union of India]..A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that such disputes involved a judicial exercise.All other land acquisition disputes are heard by judicially trained adjudicators, the Court noted. The National Highways Act, the Bench added, is the only enactment where this safeguard has been done away with and the role vested entirely in bureaucrats.The Court opined that this did not appear to be an acceptable state of affairs. "The procedure under the principal land acquisition law ensures that the determination of compensation, which is purely a judicial exercise, is undertaken by a judicially trained mind. This is the only enactment where an exception has been carved out and bureaucrats have been vested with this role. Prima facie, that is not acceptable to us," the Court said. .The Bench noted that this was a systemic disadvantages faced by landowners when it came to proceedings under the Highways Act. The Bench pointed out that lands adjoining national highways typically command higher market values. CJI Kant observed that there have been cases where farmers were denied solatium and interest under the National Highways Act until the Supreme Court intervened.He added,"Under the ordinary land acquisition law, although the Land Acquisition Collector is a civil servant, there is a judicial forum where compensation can be determined by a judicially trained mind. Under the National Highways Act, that safeguard is completely absent."Meanwhile, Attorney General for India R Venkataramani told the Court that a proposal to amend the National Highways Act is under active consideration, so that such compensation disputes are decided by a judicially trained forum..The Court proceeded to indicate that it will await the government's policy decision on the issue raised. "We are only proposing the amendment. If the Government is examining the issue, we would welcome that. Why should we decide the issue, prima facie or finally, if there is a possibility of an appropriate legislative process? We can wait for some time," the Court said..[Read Live Coverage]